MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, 17(1):35–75 (January 2001) � 2001 by the Society for Marine Mammalogy

COLLISIONS BETWEEN SHIPS AND WHALES

DAVID W. L AIST Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

AMY R. KNOWLTON Right Whale Research, New England Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, Massachusetts 02110-3399, U.S.A.

JAMES G. MEAD Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 10th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.

ANNE S. COLLET Center for Research on Marine Mammals, Port des Minimes, 17000 La Rochelle, France

MICHELA PODESTA Milano Museum of Natural History, Corso Venezia 55, 20121 Milano, Italy

ABSTRACT

Although collisions with motorized ships are a recognized source of whale mortality, little has been done to compile information on the frequency of their occurrence or contributing factors. We searched historical records and computerized stranding databases for evidence of ship strikes involving great whales (i.e., baleen whales and the sperm whale). Historical records suggest that ship strikes fatal to whales first occurred late in the 1800s as ships began to reach speeds of 13–15 kn, remained infrequent until about 1950, and then increased during the 1950s–1970s as the number and speed of ships in­ creased. Of 11 species known to be hit by ships, fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) are struck most frequently; right whales (Eubalaena glacialisand E. australis), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales (Physeter catodon), and gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) are hit commonly. In some areas, one-third of all fin whale and right whale strandings appear to involve ship strikes. To assess contributing factors, we compiled descriptions of 58 collisions. They indicate that all sizes and types of vessels can hit whales; 35 36 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001

most lethal or severe injuries are caused by ships 80 m or longer; whales usually are not seen beforehand or are seen too late to be avoided; and most lethal or severe injuries involve ships travelling 14 kn or faster. Ship strikes can significantly affect small populations of whales, such as northern right whales in the western North Atlantic. In areas where special caution is needed to avoid such events, measures to reduce the vessel speed below 14 kn may be beneficial. Key words: mortality, strandings, ship collisions, species conservation, right whales.

As steam-powered ship technology evolved in the 1800s, reports of ships striking whales began to appear (Allen 1916; Schmitt 1976, 1979). These collisions appeared to occur rarely; however, recent information suggests that ship strikes of whales may be more common than previously suspected and, in some cases, may constitute significant conservation issues. Kraus (1990) reported that at least 20% (5 of 25) of endangered northern right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) found dead between 1970 and 1989 off the eastern United States and Canada had large propeller slashes or massive injuries indicating they were killed by ships. Of the living right whales for which good-quality photographs are available, 7% (12 of 168) had scars caused by ship strikes. An updated analysis (Knowlton and Kraus, in press) links ship strikes to 35% (15 of 43) of right whale deaths between 1970 and 1998, and to at least 47% (8 of 17) of their deaths from 1991 to 1998, a period when carcass recovery and necropsy efforts improved. Because there are only about 300 animals in the population (Knowlton et al.1994, Caswell et al.1999), ship strikes pose a serious threat to recovery and intensive management efforts have been undertaken in both the United States and Canada to reduce the number of vessel-related deaths (Marine Mammal Commission 1999). Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) also may be struck by ships more frequently than previously thought in some areas. Wiley et al.(1994) found that 30% (6 of 20) of carefully examined humpback whale strandings along the U.S. Atlantic coast between 1985 and 1992, most of which were near the Chesapeake Bay, had injuries caused by ships. In some areas recurring ship strikes involving hydrofoils and high-speed vessels (e.g., those that operate at speeds of 28 kn and higher) also suggest ship collisions may be relatively common in some areas. After several collisions between ferries and sperm whales in the Canary Islands, one of which caused the death of a passenger, Andre´ et al.(1997) tried unsuccessfully to deter sperm whales from ferry routes by broadcasting low-frequency sounds. Five collisions in the Sea of Japan between high-speed jetfoil ferries and what were thought to be whales also were reported, two of which resulted in injuries to several passengers and three of which involved vessel damage (Honma et al. 1997). Although this information suggests that collisions between ships and whales are more common than previously thought, no attempt has been made to compile information on the frequency of such collisions, the types of vessels LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 37

involved, the speed of ships when whales were hit, collision locations, the behavior of whales immediately before being struck, or other potentially rel­ evant factors. The lack of such information has hampered efforts to evaluate the significance of ship strikes for whale populations and to develop appro­ priate mitigation measures. Therefore, we compiled and analyzed information on the nature and extent of collisions between motorized ships and large whales from four sources: (1) historical collision records, (2) recent whale stranding records, (3) anecdotal accounts from vessels involved in collisions, and (4) data on the number and speed of ships.

METHODS We focused on collisions between motorized vessels and great whales (i.e., baleen whales and the sperm whale, Physeter catodon). Collisions with vessels under sail were excluded from the analysis because of data limitations and a lack of evidence that such collisions cause significant injuries to whales. Historical collision records—To assess collisions with whales before 1951, we reviewed newspaper clippings, early stranding records, and scientific publica­ tions. It was not possible to verify independently the accuracy of these reports, except in rare cases where photographs of struck animals accompanied the reports. To minimize error, we considered only accounts citing vessel crew members whose descriptions indicated that the struck whale was seen clearly (e.g.,itwas caught on a ship’s bow or seen thrashing off the stern). Historical whale stranding records from the early 1600s to 1915 along northeastern North America (Allen 1916), and from 1913 to 1966 for the British Isles (Harmer 1927; Fraser 1934, 1946, 1953, 1974) were also reviewed for reports of ship strikes or stranded whales with massive injuries, such as fractured skulls and severed tails. We found no other long-term data sets for large-whale strandings before the 1970s. Recent stranding records—We searched computerized stranding databases for all records of whales killed or possibly killed by ships. These included records for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts (maintained by the Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC), Italy (maintained by the Centro Studi Cetacei, Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano), and France (the Institut de la Mer et du Littoral, La Rochelle). Stranding records for southern right whales (E. australis)in South Africa (Best et al.,in press) also were examined. From each database, we generated a list of the species, date, location, and nature or source of injury for each identified or possible ship strike. Records were attributed to ship strikes when they reported either (1) massive blunt impact trauma (e.g., fractures of heavy bones including skulls, jaws, or verte­ brae) or apparent propeller wounds (i.e., deep slashes or cuts into blubber on the dorsal aspect, or (2) a dead whale on the bow of a ship. Given the force needed to break large whale bones, it was considered unlikely that fractured jaws, skulls, or vertebrae were caused by anything other than ship collisions. Similarly, it was assumed that long, deep, parallel slashes were caused by ship 38 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 propellers. Dead whale stranding records ascribed to ship strikes were summed and the total was compared to the total number of dead whale strandings for that species from all causes. Time frames for searches varied by database de­ pending on the year in which well-organized stranding response efforts began and the last year for which data entry was relatively complete. Anecdotal accounts—To examine factors contributing to ship strikes, we com­ piled accounts describing observed collisions between ships and whales from published literature, a request for collision descriptions posted on the Internet ([email protected]), and inquiries to whale biologists, government of­ ficials, and mariners likely to have documented such events. We also reviewed newspaper clippings, articles, and unpublished first-hand accounts of vessel collisions with various species of marine life gathered by William C. Cum­ mings (5948 Eton Ct., San Diego, CA 92122), who published a request for descriptions of such events in Yachting(March 1974) and Sea Frontiers(July– August 1974). The following information was recorded from each event whenever available: date; time; location; species of whale struck; whether the struck whale was seen before the collision; a description of the impact; fate of the whale or signs of injuries; type, name, and size of the vessel; vessel speed and weather con­ ditions at the time of the collision; and vessel damage. When a vessel’s name was provided, Lloyds Registry of Shipping was used to determine and/or verify vessel length. It was not possible to verify other information. To ensure account accuracy, we included only descriptions based on the crew of vessels involved in collisions, witnesses to the collisions aboard a nearby vessel, or individuals who, as part of their official duty, investigated cases of whales brought into port on bows of ships or other reported ship strikes. In many cases, event summaries were provided to individuals reporting the event to verify their accuracy. Struck whales were assigned to one of five fate categories: killed, severe injury, minor injury, no apparent effect, or unknown fate. Whales were listed as killed if they were seen dead on a vessel’s bow or described as having been cut into pieces and sank. Whales struck with reports of blood in the water or bleeding wounds were considered severely injured. Whales seen alive after a collision with fresh wounds exposing blubber or thrashing off the stern but with no mention of blood in the water or bleeding wounds, were categorized as receiving a minor injury. Whales seen swimming away after being hit with no visible marks and with behavior similar to that observed before the whale was hit (e.g., resuming feeding) were considered to have sustained no apparent injury. The fate of whales not seen after a collision and lacking any report of blood in the water was considered to be unknown. Historical data on the number and—We speed determined of ships the number of motorized vessels 100 gross tons or larger registered by Lloyds Resister of Shipping in the last year of each decade from 1880 through the 1990s (The Committee of Lloyds Register 1890, 1950; Lloyds Register of Shipping 1992). We also examined the maximum sustained speed of more than 1,400 passenger vessels built for trans-Atlantic service in decades from the 1830s to the 1970s LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 39

(Smith 1978). These speeds were based on the average speed of each vessel’s fastest trans-Atlantic crossing. For each decade, we determined the number of passenger ships built for trans-Atlantic crossing, their average maximum sus­ tained speed, and the percentage that were able to maintain speeds above 15 kn and 20 kn.

RESULTS Evidence of ship collisions was found for 11 species of great whales. Overall, fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) were hit most frequently. Collisions with northern and southern right whales, humpback whales, gray whales (Eschri chtius robustus), and sperm whales were relatively common in some areas. There were comparatively few collision records for minke whales (B. acutorostrata), blue whales (B. musculus), and sei whales (B. borealis). Records for Bryde’s whales (B. edeni) and bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) were rare.

Historical Evidence of Collisions There were few accounts of motorized ships hitting whales before 1951. The earliest account we found involved the steamship Munroemoored in Nar­ ragansett Bay, Rhode Island, in 1877. According to Allen (1916), the captain reported that, ‘‘by some curious accident,’’ a small whale, possibly a minke whale or small fin whale, became caught between the ship’s propeller and stern while the ship lay at dock. To dislodge the animal, whose vigorous struggles to free itself raised the ship’s stern, the captain started the engine. The propeller then ‘‘inflicted such injuries upon the whale’s head that it rushed upon a shoal . . . and became stranded.’’ Between 1885 and 1950, we found only 14 accounts of collisions between moving ships and whales (Table 1). Several cases involved whales caught on the ship’s bow. Allen (1916) described five ship collisions from 1885 to 1915. One involved a sailing vessel, the schooner Adelia T. Carleton,in June 1904; four others involved motorized vessels (Table 1). One collision, involving the Admiral Sampson,‘‘just grazed (a whale, which) came up almost immediately astern and followed along for some distance as though bent on revenge.’’ The other collisions were more serious. The Lawrencestruck a whale that was seen off the stern ‘‘rolling about as if in distress’’ after being hit at a speed of about 13 kn; the Graecianstruck a whale ‘‘with such force as to cut the animal into two parts’’; and the Waldimir Reitzhit a whale head-on ‘‘knocking a four-foot hole in the (ship’s) bow.’’ Allen (1916) also reported two finback whales were found floating in Mas­ sachusetts Bay in July 1842. After being towed to shore and stripped of blubber, both were found to have broken lower jaws. He reported that ‘‘it was supposed that the two had been fighting, and so had fatally injured each other, but the usual peaceable nature of this species is rather against such a suppo­ sition.’’ He noted no other injuries typical of recent ship strikes among ap­ 40 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 a Source Slijper 1962 Allen 1916 Allen 1916 W. Cummings W. Anonymous 1950 Anonymous 1904 Allen 1916 Schmitt 1979 Anonymous 1908 Anonymous 1910 Allen 1916 Schmitt 1979 Burgess Burgess 1940 Schmitt 1979 Allen 1916 Location USA North Atlantic North Atlantic Off Newfoundland, Canada Off Chatham MA, USA Off U.S. East Coast Near Raratonga, South Pacific Red Sea, Egypt Placenta Bay, Placenta Bay, Newfoundland Atlantic Ocean Off Newfoundland, Canada Off Sandy Hook, NJ, USA Off Newfoundland, Canada North Atlantic Off Cape Hatteras, NC, USA 20 mi east of Nantucket, MA, /steamship /cargo /cargo ship /tanker /steamship /liner /liner /steamship /liner /steamship /liner /steamship /steamship /pilot boat 4 U.S. destroyer tanker Alexander M. Lawrence, No. Seminole Puma Swazi Admiral Sampson St. Louis Kensington Pallenza Waldmir Reitz Graecian Berengaria Maunganui New Orleans Records of collisions between motorized ships and whales prior to 1951. Fate of killed killed killed unknown killed? unknown killed killed injured? killed killed unknown killed killed killed Table 1. unidentified unidentified sperm whale unidentified unidentified unidentified sperm whale? unidentified unidentified sperm whale unidentified unidentified unidentified baleen whale Bryde’s Bryde’s whale Year Year Species struck whale Vessel (name/type) William William C. Cummings, unpublished data held by the Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Rm. 905, Bethesda, a 1903 1908 1912–1915 1926 1940 1885 1896 1904 1906 1908 1910 1913 Mid-1930s 1940–1945 1950 Maryland, 20814, U.S.A. 28 April 1999. LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 41

proximately 200 records compiled for five whale species (finback, right, sei, blue, and little piked or minke). Records of 164 large whale strandings in the British Isles from 1913 to 1966 (Harmer 1927; Fraser 1934, 1946, 1953, 1974) included no evidence of ship strikes even though some strandings were attributed to other human causes (e.g., commercial whaling, shootings, and possibly anti-submarine war­ fare) and one record mentions broken rib and flipper bones. Because rib and flipper bones are thinner than skulls and jaws and subject to breaking as dead animals roll in the surf, we did not consider such injuries as evidence of a ship strike. Other than Allen (1916), the first references we found in the scientific literature to whales being killed or injured by ships involved events in the 1950s. Gilmore (1959) cited reports of flukeless humpback whales and gray whales off California in the 1950s and speculated on ship collisions as the cause. Slijper (1979) noted four cases of ships colliding with what were thought to be sleeping sperm whales in the 1950s.

Stranding Records Since the mid-1970s, marine mammal stranding programs have provided a basis for documenting collisions between ships and whales. Indeed, the value of stranding records to document such human-related mortality was among the fundamental reasons cited for the need to improve stranding programs (Geraci and St. Aubin 1979). United States—Along the U.S. Atlantic coast (Maine to Dade County, Flor­ ida), 407 strandings of seven whale species were recorded between 1975 and 1996. Overall, 14% (58 of 407) of the records indicate vessel collisions as the known or possible cause of death (Table 2). Evidence of ship collisions, how­ ever, was limited to five species: fin whales (33%, 31 of 92 stranding deaths), northern right whales (33%, 10 of 30 stranding deaths), humpback whales (8%, 10 of 123 stranding deaths), minke whales (5%, 5 of 105 stranding deaths), and sei whales (67%, 2 of 3 stranding deaths). None of the six Bryde’s whales or 48 sperm whales revealed signs of a ship collision. Although there were no blue whale strandings during the search period, a dead blue whale was brought into Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, on the bow of a tanker on 3 March 1998, bringing to six the number of species with vessel-related in­ juries recorded along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Ship strike locations were dis­ tributed broadly for most species; however, for humpback whales, all but one occurred between the Delaware River and Okracoke Island, North Carolina. Between those points, 25% (9 of 36) of the humpback whale strandings in­ volved vessel injuries. A high proportion of struck right whales and humpback whales were calves and juveniles: 75% of the eight struck right whales whose ages could be estimated were calves or juveniles; 80% of the 10 struck humpback whales were �11 m, lengths considered to be three years of age or less (Stevick 1999). 42 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001

Table 2.Whales killed or possibly killed by vessel collisions from stranding records of dead whales along the U.S. East Coast (Maine to Dade County Florida): 1975–1996. Data from the Cetacean Distributional Database, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Date Location Comments Northern right whale (Eubalena glacialis); 33.3% of records (10 of 30): 4/15/76 Cape Cod, MA Calf, large bruise 11/5/76 Portland, ME Floating unrecovered, propeller cuts on back 3/5/79 Long Island, NY Juvenile, severed tail 2/21/83 Island Beach, NJ Juvenile, severed tail 8/7/86 Cape Cod, MA Juvenile, five large propeller cuts from left ven­ tral side around to middorsal area 3/12/91 Fernandina Beach, FL Juvenile, fractured skull and gillnet around tail 1/5/93 St. Augustine, FL Calf, reported when hit, series of propeller slashes from dorsal peduncle to head, and lower left flank to throat 12/6/93 Virginia Beach, VA Floating unrecovered, propeller gash on right side 1/30/96 Sapelo, GA Adult recovered floating offshore, shattered skull 3/10/96 Cape Cod, MA Adult, 3-m gash on back Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae); 8.1% of records (10 of 123): 2/5/90 Nags Head, NC 11.1-m female, broken mandible and head damage 11/8/91 Island Beach, NJ 9.0-m male, three propeller cuts on head, frac­ tured occipital condyle 2/14/92 Virginia Beach, VA 8.6-m male, propeller wounds, fractured man­ dible and eye socket 4/16/92 Assateague Is., MD 8.9-m female, disarticulated skull, blunt trauma 4/22/92 Hatteras, NC 8.9-m female, extensive skeletal damage 10/9/92 Metompkin Is., VA 8.7-m female, bruising around axilla, dislocated mandible 4/10/94 Ocracoke, NC No length, axillary hemorrhage ventral to left pectoral, hemorrhage to posterior third of mandible 4/2/96 Virginia Beach, VA 7.2-m female, fractured mandible, appeared emaciated 5/9/96 Cape Henlopen, DE 6.7-m female, deep propeller cuts behind blow­ hole 11/3/96 Corolla, NC 8.4-m male, acute trauma to skull, blunt trau­ ma to left lateral peduncle, fractured left squamosal Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus); 33.7% of records (31 of 92): 4/13/75 Newark Bay, NJ Floating near harbor 5/27/75 Brigantine, NJ Stranded on beach 1/28/76 Groton, CT Stranded on beach 10/18/79 Baltimore, MD Brought into port on bow of Russian cruise ship 1/7/80 Portsmouth, VA Floating near harbor 2/17/80 Philadelphia, PA Floating in harbor 3/31/81 Norfolk, Va Brought into port on bow of ship, later deter­ mined to have been hit off Atlantic City, NJ 4/23/82 Portsmouth, VA Stranded on beach 6/7/82 Hog Island, VA Stranded on beach LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 43

Table 2.Continued.

Date Location Comments Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus); 33.7% of records (31 of 92): 8/2/82 Elizabeth City, NJ Brought into port on bow of ship, hit off Bos­ ton, MA 1/24/83 Norfolk, VA Brought into port on bow of ship, bruising ev­ ident, reportedly hit off New York 1/25/83 Norfolk, VA Floating near harbor, bruising evident 7/31/83 Manhattan, NY Possible ship strike brought into port on bow of ship 10/14/83 Fire Island, NY Slashes on left ventral side, possible ship-strike 3/7/84 Baltimore, MD Brought into port on bow of ship, bruising ev­ ident 8/27/85 Montauk, NY Floating with propeller slashes, possible ship strike 5/6/86 Hoboken, NJ Brought into port on bow of cruise ship 7/2/86 Delaware River, NJ Reportedly struck by container ship 8/18/87 Boston, MA Folded in half forward of dorsal fin on right side, likely brought into port on bow of ship 1/15/88 Marshfield, MA Identified as possible ship collision 1/24/88 Cape Hatteras, NC Stranded on beach 5/4/88 Deal, NJ Boat hit found floating 7/14/89 North Kingstown, RI Fractured lower jaw, line entangled on right flipper 11/25/90 Curtis Bay, MD Stranded, ship strike mark mid-lateral on left side 6/2/92 Long Beach Is., NJ Stranded on beach, several fractured vertebrae 7/31/92 Port Newark, NJ Floating near harbor, fractured vertebrae in midsection 3/12/94 Virginia Beach, VA Stranded on beach 8/1/95 30 mi SE of Cape Cod, Carried to St. George, Bermuda on the bow of MA a cruise ship after being hit, bruising and spinal injuries 11/14/95 Charleston, SC Brought into port on bow of ship, fractured skull 4/18/96 Penns Grove, NJ Floating in Delaware River, broken vertebrae, blunt trauma to right pectoral fin and sur­ rounding area 7/14/96 Elizabeth, NJ Floating near harbor, bow impact to left flank Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis); 66.7% of records (2 of 3): 5/13/88 Baltimore, MD Brought into port on bow of ship, damaged skull 11/17/94 Boston, MA Brought into port on bow of container ship Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); 4.8% of records (5 of 105): 7/8/75 Boothbay, ME Stranded, body heavily bruised 10/2/75 New Harbor, ME Floating and towed to shore 5/13/88 Duxbury Beach, MA Stranded, one large gash and three smaller gashes 3/15/92 St. Johns River, FL Propeller strike from a large vessel 10/1/93 Sandbridge, VA Left mandible broken Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni); 0% of records (0 of 6) Sperm whale (Physeter catodon); 0% of records (0 of 48) 44 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001

Table 3.Whales killed or possibly killed by vessel collisions from stranding records of dead whales in Italy: 1986–1997. Data from the Centro Studi Cetacei, Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano, Italy.

Date Location Comments Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus); 20% of records (8 of 39): 6/23/86 Livorno, Tuscany Floating 5 mi offshore with propeller cuts on back 6/28/86 Livorno, Tuscany Floating offshore between Corsica and Italian mainland with propeller wounds on back 5/22/87 Olbia, Sardinia Brought into port of Olbia on bow of ship 5/20/89 Olbia, Sardinia Struck by ferry near entrance to Olbia harbor 4/28/90 Porto Torres, Sardinia Struck by ship 1.5 mi from port, seen alive with a deep wound on back and found dead a day later 4/30/91 Genova, Liguria Brought into port on bow of ferry 5/20/94 Cagliari, Sardinia Stranded with propeller wounds on right side, fractured right flipper 5/25/95 Livorno, Tuscany Brought into port on bow of ship, fractured jaw and other wounds Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); 33% of records (1 of 3): 7/31/97 Genova, Liguria Stranded with fractured skull Sperm whale (Physeter catodon); 6% of records (4 of 71): 4/27/87 Savona, Liguria Stranded with propeller wounds 1/16/88 Cagliari, Sardinia Stranded with propeller wounds 1/24/97 Messina, Sicily Stranded with propeller wounds, fractured skull 8/9/97 Ischia, Campania Stranded, three deep wounds

The blue whale found on a ship’s bow in 1998 also was a juvenile. Data to assess ages of most other struck whales were not available. Along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast (Texas to Monroe County, Florida), there were 31 dead whale strandings involving four species from 1975 through 1996: 2 sei whales, 4 minke whales, 8 Bryde’s whales, and 17 sperm whales. Only one stranding was identified as a possible ship strike—a sperm whale with propeller wounds found in Louisiana on 9 March 1990. The database included evidence of at least two other species struck by ships in the Gulf of Mexico: a northern right whale calf found dead in Texas on 30 January 1972 before our search period, and a live humpback whale seen swimming off Na­ ples, Florida, on 19 February 1994 with fresh propeller wounds. Italy—Stranding records for Italy from 1986 through 1997 listed 113 dead whales involving three species (Table 3). Overall, 12% (13 of 113) cited ship collisions as the known or possible cause of death, including 20% (8 of 39) of the fin whales, 6% (4 of 71) of the sperm whales, and 33% (1 of 3) of the minke whales. Ferries serving Corsica and Sardinia off Italy’s west coast were implicated in several vessel-related deaths. There also was a record of a sperm whale hit by a hydrofoil on 2 September 1992 off Sicily and last seen alive with ‘‘superficial wounds.’’ LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 45

Table 4.Whales killed or possibly killed by vessel collisions from stranding records of dead whales in France: 1972–1998. Data from the Institut de la Mer et du Littoral, La Rochelle, France.

Date Location Comments Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus); 22% of records (16 of 72) 7/5/72 Med. Sea, off Calvi (N. 18-m male hit by a ferry, seen dead float­ Corsica) ing at sea 9/3/72 Med. Sea, Nice 12.6-m male hit by ferry La Corse, brought into port on bow of ship 8/30/73 Med. Sea, between France 15-m animal hit by ferry La Corse, and Corsica brought into port on bow of ship 9/10/74 Med. Sea, between Menton 15-m animal cut through middle, seen and Antibes floating offshore for 3 d 4/3/76 Med. Sea, Toulon 14.3-m male hit by merchant ship, brought into port on bow of ship, sever­ al ribs and cervical vertebra broken 10/19/76 Atl. O., Bay of Biscay, 12.5-m female stranded alive, large propel­ Lorient ler cuts on back, probable ship strike 9/19/82 Med. Sea, Villeneuve les 13.5-m animal stranded dead, cut through Maguelonnes middle of the back, probable ship strike 1/21/85 Med. Sea, Port La Nou­ 18-m male stranded alive, large propeller velle La Franqui cuts on its back, probable ship strike 11/10/86 Med. Sea, Fos sur Mer 16-m animal hit by tanker, brought into port on bow of ship 5/13/91 Atl. O., Bay of Biscay, 18.8-m male hit by tanker Edouardo LD, Donges brought into port on bow of ship, bro­ ken jaw 9/9/93 Med. Sea, St. Tropez Hit by ship, seen dead floating at sea 9/9/93 Med. Sea, Toulon 16-m female hit by ferry Ile de Beaute, brought into port on bow of ship 7/19/94 Atl. O., English Channel, 14.5-m male hit by merchant ship Fidelio, Le Havre brought into port on bow of ship 9/26/95 Med. Sea, Fos sur Mer 18-m female hit by merchant ship Japan Senator, brought into port on bow of ship 7/26/96 Med. Sea, between France 14-m male hit by a ferry Danielle Casano and Corsica va, brought into port on bow of ship 2/24/97 Med. Sea, Marseille 5.2-m male stranded alive, large hematosis on right side of thorax, possible ship strike Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis); 0% of records (0 of 2) Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); 0% of records (0 of 17) Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae); 0% of records (0 of 6) Sperm whale (Physeter catodon); 0% of records (0 of 30)

France—French stranding records for the period 1972 through 1998 in­ cluded 127 dead whales of five species (Table 4). Overall, 13% (16 of 127) of the records listed ship strikes as a known or possible cause of death. For fin whales, vessel-related injuries were noted in 22% (16 of 72) of the strandings, 46 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001

Table 5.Southern right whales killed or possibly killed by vessel collisions from stranding records of dead whales in South Africa: 1963–1998. Data from Best et., al in press.

Date Location Comments Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis); 20% of records (11 of 55): 7/27/83 Beachview, Port Elizabeth 14.3-m adult, five apparent propeller gashes 2/8/84 Jakkalsfontein Adult, seen from air, major damage around midlength 10/16/84 East London Harbor 7.2-m calf struck by dredge, propeller wounds 9/10/88 25 km E of Sundays Riv- 14.1-m male thought to be animal struck by er ferry two days earlier, propeller gashes and damaged rostrum 9/10/88 25 km E of Sundays Riv- 14.0-m male no external injuries but possi­ er bly struck by same ferry 8/16/93 Between Long Beach and Calf found with tail cut off Koppie Alleen 10/10/93 Lekkerwater, De Hoop Female calf found with tail cut off 9/22/94 Kabeljoubank, Breede 11.23-m juvenile, cuts across back River 11/10/94 Shell Bay, St. Helena Bay 10.7-m juvenile, diagonal slashes near geni­ tal aperture 7/28/96 Scarborough, Cape Pen- 14.6-m adult, broken rostrum and missing ninsula skull bones 7/10/98 Die Dam, Quoin Point Female calf found with tail cut off most of which (13 of 16) occurred along the Mediterranean coast. Five colli­ sions involved ferries along the Mediterranean coast, five others were attributed to merchant ships or tankers. A specific vessel type was not ascribed in the remaining six cases. South Africa—A review of southern right whale stranding records from 1963 through 1998 in South Africa (Best et al.,in press) identified ship collisions as a known or possible cause for 20% (11 of 55) of recorded deaths (Table 5). Fifty-five percent (6 of 11) of the ship strikes involved calves or juveniles. In five cases ship strikes were cited as a definite cause of death and in six cases they were considered a possible cause. Two of the five definite ship strikes involved known vessels, a hopper dredge and a ferry. Best et al.(in press) also listed five non-fatal collisions with right whales. These involved two motor launches, a 6-m inflatable boat, a catamaran whale-watching boat, and a fisheries patrol boat. Types of injuries—Ship strike injuries to whales take two forms: (1) propeller wounds characterized by external gashes or severed tail stocks; and (2) blunt trauma injuries indicated by fractured skulls, jaws, and vertebrae, and massive bruises that sometimes lack external expression. The frequency of the two injury types varied among species. Propeller injuries comprised a high pro­ portion of ship collision injuries among right whales stranded along the U.S. Atlantic coast (70%; 7 of 10 whales) and South African coast (73%; 8 of 11 whales), while blunt trauma alone was indicated in 93% (29 of 31) of the fin LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 47

Figure 1.Number and fate of whales struck by different vessel types from collision accounts found in this study. Killed � observed carcass; Severe Injury � report of bleeding wounds or observation of blood in the water; Minor Injuries � visible non- bleeding wound or sign of distress with no report of blood; No Apparent Effect � resighted with no apparent wound or sign of distress and resumed pre-collision activity; Unknown � whale not resighted and no report of blood in the water.

whales struck on the U.S. Atlantic coast and at least 69% (11 of 16) struck fin whales in France. Blunt trauma injuries also were responsible for both sei whales and the blue whale struck by ships along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Differences in frequency of injury types among species appears to be related to morphology. Long, sleek rorquals tend to be caught on the bows of ships and carried into port where they are likely to be found and recorded in strand­ ing databases. For example, most fin whales with blunt trauma injuries (20 of 31 on the U.S. Atlantic coast and 9 of 16 in France) were carried into port on ship bows or found floating in or very near major harbors. Both sei whales and the blue whale found along the U.S. Atlantic coast also were found on the bows of ships entering port. In contrast to these rorquals, there were no records in any of the examined databases of stockier species, such as right whales, humpback whales, or sperm whales, being caught on vessel bows or found in ports.

Anecdotal Records We found descriptions of 58 collisions between motorized vessels and whales (Appendix 1). As shown in Figure 1, they include a wide range of vessel types: whale-watching vessels (including a high-speed vessel), cargo ships (including four with bulbous bows), ferries (including three high-speed ferries), Navy ships (a submarine traveling at the surface, a frigate, a heavy cruiser, an aircraft carrier, two destroyers, and two hydrofoils), passenger vessels (including two 48 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 with bulbous bows), Coast Guard patrol boats, private recreational craft, com­ mercial fishing vessels, research vessels, a pilot boat, and a hopper dredge. The smallest vessel was a 4-m outboard; the largest was a 232-m passenger liner. High speed vessels were involved in 15% of the 40 accounts found since 1975. Vessel damage was reported in 14 cases; in 18 other cases there were affir­ mative reports of no damage, and for 26 accounts information on vessel dam­ age was not available. The collision accounts involved at least 10 whale species: 8 humpback whales, 6 fin whales, 5 sperm whales, 3 blue whales, 3 gray whales, 2 minke whales, 2 southern right whales, 2 Bryde’s whale, 1 northern right whale, 1 killer whale, and 25 whales not identified as to species. Twenty-three accounts (40%) report the whale was killed; 23 others (40%) cite evidence of injuries, including 15 classified as severe injuries (some of which may have been fatal), and 8 scored as minor injuries. One minor injury involved a whale hit by the bow of a whale watching vessel in 1991. Resightings of the whale, a photo- identified individual, revealed rapid healing over the next six years. Two ac­ counts (3%) reported no apparent effect on struck whales and in 10 cases (17%), the fate of the whale was listed as unknown. Most severe and lethal whale injuries involved large ships. Of the 15 whales considered severely injured, three were hit by vessels less than 20 m long, three by vessels between 20 and 80 m long, and nine by ships longer than 80 m. Of 23 collisions in which whales were killed, at least 20 (87%) involved ships more than 80 m long. The smallest vessels involved in collisions fatal to whales were a 20-m high-speed ferry moving at 45 kn, a 24-m whale- watching boat moving at about 25 kn, and a 25-m Coast Guard patrol boat moving at about 15 kn; two of these three involved collisions with calves. All but one account classified as a minor injury (n� 8) or no apparent effect (n � 2) involved vessels less than 45 m long. The exception was a pilot boat whose length is unknown and may have been less than 45 m. Fourteen accounts involved whales caught on ship bows, and in at least eight of these incidents, vessels had to use reverse thrust to remove the whale. The smallest ship reporting a bow-pinned whale was a 121-m container ship. Similar to stranding records, almost all records of whales caught on ship bows involved rorquals (i.e., three blue whales, two fin whales, and two Bryde’s whales) or unidentified species (n� 5); there also was one record of a sperm whale caught on a ship’s bow. Stockier whale species (e.g.,right whales, gray whales, and humpback whales) were rare or absent among reports of bow- caught animals; they included only one humpback whale and one whale ques­ tionably identified as a right whale. In most cases, whales struck by vessels either were not seen or were seen too late be avoided. Excluding 13 accounts with information insufficient to determine whether whales were seen before the collision, 93% (40 of 43) of the accounts reported that the whale either was not seen before it was hit (n � 17) or it surfaced immediately in front of the vessel too late to be avoided (n� 23). In one case (a commercial fishing vessel), the whale was observed feeding near the vessel for some time before it turned in front of the bow and LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 49

Figure 2.Severity of injuries to whales struck by vessels traveling at known speeds. Killed � observed carcass; Severe Injury � report of bleeding wounds or observation of blood in the water; Minor Injuries � visible non-bleeding wound or sign of distress with no report of blood; No Apparent Effect � resighted with no apparent wound or sign of distress and resumed pre-collision activity; Unknown � whale not resighted and no report of blood in the water.

was hit. Two other cases reported that the whale was seen before the collision, but it was not clear how long before. Most accounts reporting that whales were seen immediately before impact provide little or no information on whale behavior at that time. A few, how­ ever, suggest a last-second flight response may occur in some cases; one whale apparently breached directly in front of a submarine leaving port and landed on its bow, and another reportedly lunged quickly just before being hit by a whale-watching vessel. Perhaps the best evidence of a last-second flight re­ sponse was an event reportedly video-taped on 5 March 1988 in which a small pod of migrating gray whales dived suddenly when a large commercial ship approached to within about 27 m (Heyning and Dahlheim, in press). Vessel speed at the time of impact was reported in 41 accounts and ranged from 6 to 51 kn. Information on both vessel speed and condition of the whale after being hit was available in 33 cases (Fig. 2). Among collisions causing lethal or severe injuries, 89% (25 of 28) involved vessels moving at 14 kn or faster and the remaining 11% (3 of 28) involved vessels moving at 10–14 kn; none occurred at speeds below 10 kn. The three fatal or severe injuries caused by vessels moving slower than 14 kn involved a southern right whale killed by a ferry moving at 12–13 kn and two severely injured whales hit by small private vessels reportedly traveling at 10 kn. Of five collisions classified as causing no or minor injuries, three were traveling at less than 10 kn. In all cases where fate of a whale was unknown but vessel speed was reported (n� 8), vessels were moving 14 kn or faster. 50 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001

At least 53 of the 58 collision accounts occurred on the continental shelf or shelf slope. Exceptions included two collisions (October 1980 and March 1998) with blue whales where the location of the collision was not determined; a collision (mid-1930s) with an unidentified species ‘‘near Rarotonga’’ in the South Pacific; a collision (September 1961) at an unspecified location in the Caribbean Sea; and a collision with a sperm whale (29 November 1965) about 200 km west of San Francisco, California. Twenty-seven collisions occurred in daylight, nine at night, and one at dusk; for 20 accounts, the time was not reported.

Historical Trends in the Number and Speed of Ships Trends in ship strikes may be affected by the number and speed of ships. Based on Lloyds Register of Shipping, the number of steam and motor vessels greater than 100 gross tons more than doubled between 1890 and 1920 when the first collision records were found. During this period the registered number of such ships increased from 11,108 to 26,513 (The Committee of Lloyds Register 1890 and 1950). Their numbers then remained relatively stable until 1950, when they again increased rapidly until 1980. Between 1950 and 1980, when the registry increased from 30,852 to 73,832 ships (The Committee of Lloyds Register 1992), documented ship strikes appear to have increased sharply. After 1980 the increase in vessel numbers slows substantially (the registry listed 78,336 ships in 1990) and the number of ship strikes has remained relatively stable or perhaps increased slightly. Since 1819, when the first steam-powered ship (the Savannah) crossed the Atlantic, the speed of motorized oceangoing ships has increased substantially. Passenger vessels, along with warships, are among the fastest oceangoing ships. Based on the maximum sustained speeds of 1,422 steam-powered ships built since the 1830s for trans-Atlantic passenger service (Table 6), the average maximum sustained speed of the fastest ships began reaching 14–16 kn late in the 1800s and early in the 1900s when the first collisions fatal to whales were reported. Interestingly, many of the earliest collision records involved some of the fastest ships of the day. The earliest record (1885) involved a pilot boat reportedly moving at 13 kn (Allen 1916) and at least four of the eight other records before 1930 (Table 1) involved passenger vessels able to steam at over 14 kn. These included the Kensington,a 146-m ship built in 1894 and able to maintain speeds up to 16 kn; the St. Louis,a 162-m ship built in 1895 and capable of 21 kn; and the Berengaria,a 268-m ship built in 1912 and capable of 23.5 kn (Smith 1978). Although a maximum speed of the liner, Seminole,was not found, its sister ship could steam at 16 kn. The max­ imum speed and type of other vessels involved in collisions with whales before 1930 could not be found. Most oceangoing vessels, however, are freighters, tankers, and other types of vessels whose maximum speed is considerably slower—perhaps 5–8 kn slower—than the passenger vessel speeds shown in Table 6. For example, based on a 1933 list of 3,126 merchant ships of all types (i.e., passenger vessels and LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 51

Table 6.Maximum sustained speeds of ships engaged in trans-Atlantic passenger service built in decades from the 1830s to 1970s based on the vessels’ fastest trans- Atlantic crossing.

1830– 1840– 1850– 1860– 1870– 1839 1849 1859 1869 1879 Total number of ships enter- 721 76 128 158 ing service Average maximum speed for 7.7 10.1 10.5 11.4 12.7 all vessels (in knots) Range of maximum average 6–8.5 8.5–13 8.5–13.5 10–14 10–16 speeds (in knots) No./% of ships �15 kt 0 0 0 0 15 (10%) No./% of ships �20 kt 0 0 0 0 0

Table 6.Continued.

1880– 1890– 1900– 1910– 1920– 1889 1899 1909 1919 1929 Total number of ships enter­ 163 164 263 96 142 ing service Average maximum speed for 13.8 14.5 15.0 16.8 16.6 all vessels (in knots) Range of maximum average 10–22 11–22.5 11–26 12.5–24 11–28.5 speeds (in knots) No./% of ships �15 kt 45 52 136 81 111 (27%) (32%) (51%) (84.4%) (78.1%) No./% of ships �20 kt 3 10 10 11 12 (1.9%) (6.1%) (3.8%) (11.5%) (8.5%)

Table 6.Continued.

1930– 1940– 1950– 1960– 1970– 1939a 1949a 1959a 1969a 1977a Total number of ships enter­ 61 49 32 43 19 ing service Average maximum speed for 19.1 17.6 18.9 21.2 21.0 all vessels (in knots) Range of maximum average 14–40 14–31 15–35.5 17–28.5 19–24 speeds (in knots) No./% of ships 57 47 101 43 19 (93.4%) (95.9%) (100%) (100%) (100%) No./% of ships 24 8 36 30 18 (39.3%) (16.3%) (35.5%) (69.8%) (95%) a For decades after the 1930s, data also include maximum speeds of passenger ships entering service in all parts of the world as listed in Supplement Part VIII of Smith 1978. Data extracted from data in Smith 1978. 52 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 other types of merchant ships) able to maintain speeds of 12 kn or faster (The Committee of Lloyds Register 1934), 71% (2,227) were limited to speeds of 12–14 kn when the maximum sustained speed of new passenger vessels av­ eraged about 19 kn and nearly 40% could steam at 20 kn or faster (Table 6). A similar list for 1950 (The Committee of Lloyds Register 1950) indicated that most merchant ships (61%; 2,910 of 4,770) were still limited to maxi­ mum speeds of 12–14 kn. Thus, the apparent increase in the number of ship- struck whales between the 1950s and 1970s also corresponds with the period when the maximum speed of most large oceangoing ships began to exceed 14–15 kn and most new passenger vessels were exceeding 20 kn.

DISCUSSION To date, stranding data and anecdotal accounts offer the only way to glean useful insights into the occurrence, frequency, and significance of vessel-related whale deaths and injuries. Although intriguing patterns and trends are sug­ gested by these data, varying degrees of speculation are required to evaluate their validity because of inherent sampling biases and data limitations. For example, in almost half of the 57 anecdotal collision reports, the species of whale was not identified. This could bias our perception of which species are most often hit. With this in mind, we offer the following observations. 1. Ship collisions with motorized vessels appear to have begun late in the 1800s and to have remained relatively infrequent until the 1950s. From the 1950s through the 1970s they increased to approach current levels. In some areas ship strikes are now responsible for a substantial proportion of large-whale strandings. Accounts of ship collisions before 1950 may be scarce because they went unnoticed or unrecorded. It seems more likely, however, that their scarcity reflects a genuine rarity compared to the number of events in recent decades. Many ship strikes leave obvious signs on whales (e.g., severed tails and large propeller slashes) that one would expect to be noted. Yet, while early stranding records mention other types of injuries and human interactions, injuries and interactions attributable to ships are absent or infrequent. Also, ship-strike accounts before the 1950s were treated as great curiosities. The whale carried into Baltimore harbor by a tanker in 1940 attracted a crowd of 10,000 people (Burgess 1940). Therefore, we assume that a relatively large proportion of such events would have been reported in local newspapers or otherwise come to the attention of whale scientists. A low number of collision records before the 1950s also might be expected, given the depleted status of many large whale populations early in the 1900s due to commercial whaling and the small number of large ships. As noted below, the slow speed of ships early in the 1900s also could be a factor. Between the 1950s and 1970s ship collision anecdotes become more com­ mon. Since the 1970s, stranding records indicate that ship strikes have been responsible for a substantial proportion of whale strandings and that the fre­ LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 53

quency of such events has been relatively stable or increasing slowly. For ex­ ample, although nine ship-struck whales were found along the U.S Atlantic coast between 1975 and 1979 compared to 16 between 1990 and 1994, the same number of ship-struck right whales, fin whales, and minke whales were found in both five-year periods (Table 2). In some cases the proportion of ship strikes in stranding records is surpris­ ingly high (e.g., one-third of stranded northern right whales and fin whales along the U.S. east coast). Inherent biases and data limitations make it difficult to evaluate the significance of such proportions. On the one hand, several factors may artificially inflate the proportion of ship-struck whales. Some deaths may be attributed erroneously to ships due to collisions with floating whales already dead. Also, disease, parasites, entanglement, or other factors may cause whales to spend more time at the surface and predispose them to being hit. Some whales struck by ships also are carried into port where they are more likely to be found. Other factors could lead to underestimating vessel collisions in stranding records. Some collisions inflict only internal injuries, such as fractured verte­ brae and skulls, with no obvious external damage. These injuries can only be identified by flensing carcasses to the bone, a practice not done for most large whale strandings. Thus, some deaths caused by ships undoubtedly go unrec­ ognized. Flensing right whale carcasses to the bone, which became routine along the eastern United States and Canada in the 1990s, has resulted in identifying some ship strike victims that otherwise would not have been iden­ tified. Thus, while 29% of the 24 documented right whale deaths in both countries was attributed to ship collisions between 1970 and 1990, 47% of the 17 carcasses found between 1990 and 1998 was linked to this cause (Knowlton and Kraus, in press). Some ship-strike injuries also may be masked by advanced carcass decomposition, and some documented carcasses are never examined (e.g., unretrieved floaters and whales disposed of before they can be examined). Also, although some whales may be hit after they are already dead, it is possible to distinguish between pre- and post-mortem injuries. Large hema­ tomas indicating a functioning circulatory system at the time of death provide evidence that a whale was alive when struck. Because dead whales tend to float ventral side up, the location of observed injuries also can help distinguish between pre- and post-mortem wounds. Finally, although some rorquals are carried into port on ship bows, one would think that hitting a whale such that it becomes pinned to a ship’s bow would occur only in a small fraction of collision incidents and that, for every whale carried into port, many more may be struck and mortally wounded but not caught. In this regard, small rorquals, such as minke, Bryde’s, and sei whales found only occasionally on ship bows, could be underrepresented compared to large rorquals because their small size may reduce the likelihood of being caught and remaining on a bow. Considering all of these factors, it seems likely that more vessel-related deaths have gone unrecognized or unrecorded than have been mistakenly as­ cribed to post-mortem ship collisions, and that the recorded number of strand­ 54 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 ings attributed to ship strikes is probably lower than the actual number of such deaths. 2. Although all types and sizes of vessels may hit whales, most lethal and serious injuries to whales are caused by relatively large vessels (e.g.,80m or longer). Collision accounts found in this study likely are biased towards vessel types whose passengers and crew are more likely to report such events to resource managers or scientists. For example, the relatively large number of accounts involving whale-watching boats (11) and Coast Guard or Navy ships (12) probably reflects a high level of awareness about marine conservation issues among their passengers and crew rather than a greater chance of such vessels hitting whales. Nevertheless, accounts compiled in this study provide useful information on the range of vessel types involved in collisions with whales. The broad array of vessels included in Appendix 1, ranging from small outboards to aircraft carriers, suggests that virtually all types of vessels may hit whales, but that small vessels are less likely to do so. This conclusion appears valid for several reasons. One would expect operators of small vessels (e.g., less than 20 m) to notice collisions with whales because small vessels would receive a significant jolt from such collisions. Also, they tend to operate in good weather when objects struck would be easier identify, and operators of small vessels close to the water would have good visibility all around the vessel. A relatively low number of accounts involving small vessels also would be expected due to their shallow draft and perhaps because of their superior maneuverability, which could allow operators to avoid whales in many cases. Conversely, the crews of larger vessels (e.g., vessels more than 100 m long) may be less likely to see and report collisions because visibility immediately in front of the ship where whales may first appear is more limited (e.g., large ships have higher bows with bridges farther astern) and because the greater mass of large ships makes collision impacts less likely to be felt. In 8 of 21 collisions involving vessels 120 m or longer, crew members were unaware that a whale was struck until the ship arrived at port with a whale on the bow. Thus, the disparity in collision records for small and large vessels may actually be greater than that reflected in accounts presented in Appendix 1. The mas­ sive nature of most blunt trauma and propeller injuries observed on dead ship- struck whales also suggests that most, if not all, lethal collisions are caused by large ships rather than small vessels. 3. A great majority of ship strikes seem to occur over or near the continental shelf. With some caveats, collision accounts seem useful for determining general areas where collision risks are relatively high. The high percentage of collision accounts in Appendix 1 over or near continental shelves probably reflects great­ er concentrations of vessel traffic and whales in these areas. Stranding records also seem to support this trend. As noted above, rorquals can be caught and transported long distances on LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 55

ship bows. In some cases the precise time and location of these collisions have been determined by examining ship logs for sudden unexplained changes in vessel speed or propeller pitch caused by the added drag of a bow-pinned whale. From this evidence, the longest transport distance we found was a fin whale struck 50 km southeast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, by a cruise ship on 1 August 1995 and carried to St. George, Bermuda, a distance of at least 1,100 km (Anonymous 1995). Because of such transport distances, stranding sites for species potentially caught on ship bows may not reflect actual collision sites. However, for all cases in Appendix 1 where the collision location of bow- caught whales was determined, whales were hit over or near the continental shelf. For species rarely caught on ship bows, stranding data may be more useful for assessing where collision risks may be relatively high. Massive injuries from vessel collisions may reduce a victim’s mobility and cause rapid death, leaving them to drift from impact sites with prevailing winds and currents. Thus, stranding sites for these species may be relatively close to impact positions. From dead northern right whales found along eastern North America, Knowl­ ton and Kraus (in press) note that whales killed by ships tend to be closer to major shipping lanes than whales with no evidence of vessel-related injuries. Similarly, the high proportion of stranded humpback whales struck by ships off the U.S. mid-Atlantic states since 1990 suggests that shipping lanes off Chesapeake Bay may constitute an area where humpback whales are likely to be hit. Regular reports of collisions by local vessel traffic, such as recurring reports of ferries hitting fin whales off Corsica and Sardinia in the Mediter­ ranean Sea and sperm whales near the Canary Islands, also may suggest rela­ tively high-risk collision areas. The captain of one ferry operating between France and Corsica estimated that they hit whales at least once a year. The high proportion of calves and juveniles among stranded ship-struck right whales and humpback whales indicates that young animals may be more vulnerable to being hit by ships. This could be caused by the relatively large amount of time that calves and juveniles spend at the surface or in shallow coastal areas where they are vulnerable to being hit. It also may indicate that whales learn to avoid vessels as they mature. In either case, habitats preferred by nursing or juvenile right whales or humpback whales could be areas where collision risks are greater. 4. The behavior of whales in the path of approaching ships is uncertain but, in some cases, last-second flight responses may occur. Because whales rely on sound to communicate and because vessels produce loud sounds within the hearing range of whales (Richardson et al.1995), one would think whales could detect and avoid approaching vessels. Reports of abrupt whale responses to noises much quieter than ships, such as a shutter click from an underwater camera, bolster this supposition (Caldwell et al. 1966). At times, however, whales seem oblivious to vessel sound. Slijper (1979) refers to ‘‘many stories of ships colliding with sleeping sperm whales’’ and reports similar sleeping behavior in Greenland (bowhead) whales, hump­ 56 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 back whales, and right whales. In one case he reports a ship came upon a ‘‘Biscayne Right Whale sleeping at the surface (that) woke up only when the ship’s bow waves lapped over its head.’’ Whales engaged in feeding also may be less responsive to approaching ships. Chatterton (1926) noted that in the 1920s, when whalers began seeking ror­ quals in the Antarctic, they were hunted only when feeding. Similarly, Hor­ wood (1981) noted that minke whales feeding at the surface in the Antarctic were easily approached and usually ignored the ship. Right whales may be more vulnerable to ship strikes than other species because of behaviors, such as skim feeding, nursing, and mating, which occur at the surface and may make whales less attentive to surrounding activity and noise. Underwater pathways through which ship noises move also may affect the ability of whales to detect and avoid approaching vessels. Terhune and Ver­ boom (1999) suggest that the failure of right whales to react to vessel noise may be caused by difficulty in locating approaching vessels due to underwater sound reflections, confusion from the sound of multiple vessels, hull blockage of engine and propeller noise in front of vessels, and a phenomenon known as the Lloyd mirror effect which reduces sound levels at the surface where resting or feeding whales may occur. Although few collision accounts found in this review provide information on whale behavior immediately before being hit, a last-second flight response was suggested in some cases. Considering the ability of startled whales to flee threatening situations with bursts of speed and the added push it would re­ ceive from the bow wave of a large vessel, seconds or even fractions of seconds may determine whether or not some whales are hit. The success of last-second flight responses may therefore depend in part on the swimming speed of whales relative to the speed of approaching ships. Right whales, bowhead whales, gray whales, humpback whales, and sperm whales are among the slow­ est swimming whales. Slijper (1979) cites a usual swimming speed for these species at 3.5–4.3 kn, with sperm whales able to make an ‘‘occasional sprint’’ of 13.9 kn and humpback whales reaching speeds of 8.6 kn. Tomilin (1957) cites a slower top speed (8–10 kn) for sperm whales, a higher top speed (14.7 kn) for humpback whales, and a top speed of 7 kn for right whales ‘‘when they are frightened.’’ For gray whales, Tomilin (1957) cites a top speed of 8.6 kn for ‘‘frightened’’ animals. Rorqual whales (other than humpback whales) have higher swimming speeds, an ability Slijper (1965) attributes to their thinner blubber layers. For blue and fin whales, Slijper (1965) and Tomilin (1957) cite cruising speeds of 8.7–10.4 kn and sprint speeds of 15.6–17.4 kn, while sei whales, perhaps the fastest of the great whales, may reach a top speed of 26 kn. 5. Most severe and lethal injuries caused by ship strikes appear to be caused by vessels traveling at 14 kn or faster. Because the probability of a vessel hitting and killing a whale must increase as its speed increases from zero, it follows that the hazard posed by ships is at least partly a function of their speed. As a vessel begins to pick up speed, LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 57

one would expect such probabilities to increase slowly at first as most whales are pushed out of the way unharmed or able to take evasive action. At higher speeds the probabilities of lethal or serious injuries likely would increase more rapidly as impact forces reach a point where serious injuries are possible and whales have less time to avoid moving ships. At even higher speeds, increases in the probability of serious injuries would likely level out and become a virtual certainty as all whales struck would be seriously injured or killed and time for startled whales to avoid a vessel no longer exists. Although correlations between collision probabilities and specific vessel speeds are unknown and may vary by vessel type, collision accounts appear to provide some insights. As noted above, 89% of collision accounts found in this review in which whales were killed or severely injured and vessel speed was reported involved vessels moving at 14 kn or faster and none occurred at speeds of less than 10 kn. Also, collision records first appear late in the 1800s when the fastest vessels began attaining speeds of 14 kn, and then increased sharply in the 1950s–1970s when the average speed of most merchant ships began to exceed about 15 kn. The scarcity of collision accounts below 14 kn could be an artifact of the small sample size of collision records found in this study; however, the absence of accounts involving severe or lethal whale injuries at speeds below 10 kn, and the low number of such collisions below 14 kn, seems significant. Since the 1970s, when most collision accounts occur and most ships have been capable of 15 kn or faster, vessels traveling at 14 kn or slower presumably have done so principally when there was a special need to be alert for navi­ gation hazards. Thus, one might expect there would have been a greater chance of noticing and reporting collisions at speeds below 14 kn since the 1970s, yet there are few such records. 6. Ship collisions probably have a negligible effect on the status and trend of most whale populations, but for very small populations or discrete groups, they may have a significant effect. A crude measure of the importance of ship strikes on whale populations can be obtained by comparing data on ship strikes and the size and trend of affected whale populations. For example, eastern North Pacific gray whales and western Arctic bowhead whales, estimated to number 22,571 and 8,200, respectively, have been increasing steadily for two decades or more (Interna­ tional Whaling Commission 1997). For gray whales, Patten et al.(1980) refer to records of 12 collisions and six deaths off southern California between 1975 and 1980, and Heyning and Dahlheim (in press) report only 7 of 489 gray whales stranded between Mexico and Alaska from 1975 to 1989 with apparent propeller injuries. For bowhead whales, no records were found of whales killed by ships and George et al.(1994) report propeller scars on only 2 of 236 (0.8%) carefully examined whales landed by Alaska Native whalers between 1976 and 1992. Even if vessel-related deaths were several times greater than observed levels, it would still be a small fraction of their total populations. This also appears to be the case for humpback whales and fin whales in the 58 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001

North Atlantic where ship collisions constitute a higher proportion of strand­ ings. With North Atlantic populations of humpback whales and fin whales estimated at 10,600 whales (Smith et al.1999) and more than 20,000 whales (International Whaling Commission 1992), respectively, vessel-related deaths several times higher than numbers reported in this paper would still constitute a small portion of their total populations. However, in combination with other causes of human-related mortality (e.g., entanglement in fishing gear and whal­ ing), vessel-related deaths may warrant consideration in relevant population models and management programs. Also, high numbers of ship strikes in some areas, such as collisions with humpback whales off U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal states and fin whales in the western Mediterranean Sea, could be a source of concern for some local population segments. For highly endangered populations numbering in the low hundreds of an­ imals, where the loss of even a few individuals can be significant, ship colli­ sions can be a major recovery obstacle. This certainly is true for northern right whales in the western North Atlantic, and also could be true for western North Pacific gray whales, which may be near the minimum number necessary for recovery (Rice et al.1984), and for northern right whales in the western North Pacific, which may number in the low hundreds (Perry et al.1999). The small population of blue whales that feed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, also may warrant concern. Although highly endangered bowhead whale popula­ tions off northeastern Canada, Greenland, northern Europe, and Russia are well removed from most ship traffic, they too could be at risk if year-round northern sea routes develop in their Arctic habitats.

Conclusions For some small whale populations or population segments, ship collisions can pose a substantial threat. Massive injuries on stranded ship-struck whales suggest large vessels are the principal source of severe injuries to whales. Cur­ rently, anecdotal records provide the only information for evaluating vessel operating factors related to ship strikes. Although such records have significant weaknesses, they merit consideration absent other data. Accounts found in this review suggest that most whales hit by ships are not seen beforehand or seen only at the last moment. Collision avoidance strategies dependent on detecting and avoiding whales therefore may be ineffective for large ships with limited maneuverability. Where steps are needed to reduce collision risks, advanced planning to avoid or minimize travel distances through high-use whale hab­ itats or to reduce vessel speed in waters where whales are likely to occur may be more effective. Collision accounts compiled here suggest that serious in­ juries to whales may occur infrequently at vessel speeds below 14 kn and rarely at speeds below 10 kn. Therefore, there may be benefit in management actions designed to reduce vessel speed below at least 14 kn to reduce the impact of vessel collisions on large cetaceans. Further research is needed to identify areas where collisions between ships and whales are most frequent and to help further evaluate and improve upon LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 59

mitigation measures. To assess the frequency, location, and circumstances of such collisions, vessel operators, port pilots, and other port officials should be asked to record and immediately report any collisions with whales or whales carried into port on bows of ships. Reports should be made promptly to resource management officials or marine mammal stranding coordinators so that involved vessel crews can be interviewed, and navigation and engine logs can be examined for information on when, where, and at what speed the collision occurred and the behavior of whales before and after being hit. Also, stranding program participants should routinely look for and record injuries caused by ships on all beach-cast whales. For whales belonging to small pop­ ulations or population segments that may be affected by low levels of human- related mortality, it would be prudent to flense stranded whale carcasses to the bone to look for internal injuries caused by ship collisions. Further research also is needed to better assess whale behavior and responses near transiting ships of different types and sizes. Studies of the frequency and intensity of sound produced by different types of ships at different depths, distances, and directions (particularly in front of vessels), and the responses of whales engaged in different behaviors to those signals would be helpful for determining whether or at what distance whales may be able to detect and avoid ships. Studies to document and assess other ship-generated signals that might cause a startle response in whales directly in front of approaching ships, such as low amplitude, high-intensity hull vibrations, and bow wave effects, also should be made. Studies also should be undertaken to better identify habitat-use patterns of whales and correlations between environmental param­ eters and whale distribution to improve advice to mariners on when and where whales are most likely to occur. Research on alternative management actions also should be considered. Po­ tential studies include periodic review of the feasibility of evolving technolo­ gies to provide vessel operators with real-time data on the presence and lo­ cation of whales along navigation routes. Possible options might include bot- tom-mounted sonobuoys along established vessel traffic lanes through impor­ tant whale habitats to relay information on whale locations to ships, and further research similar to that by Andre´ et al.(1997) on the possible use of sound to alert whales to approaching ships.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A review such as this would be impossible without the generous cooperation and help of numerous colleagues. We are especially indebted to William C. Cummings, who provided all his unpublished data from a 1970s survey of interactions between vessels and marine mammals, and to Michel Andre´, Peter Best, and Olivier Van Can­ neyt for their extensive efforts to compile stranding data and answer what must have seemed to be endless questions about the data and individual stranding records. At the risk of omitting some of the many others who helped gather information for this study, we acknowledge and thank David G. Ainley, Dee Allen, Phillip J. Clapham, Timothy Cole, Marilyn E. Dahlheim, Kalli De Meyer, Greame M. Ellis, John Ford, Peter Gill, Diane Hirman, John E. Heyning, Paul Johnston, Toshio Kasuya, Scott D. 60 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001

Kraus, Denise Landau, William McLellan, Nadia Menard, Richard Merrick, Joseph S. Murphy, II, Marcia Muto, Todd O’Hara, Charles Potter, Lloyd Richards, Jooke Rob­ bins, Bruce A. Russell, Robert Schoelkopf, Mary Sternfeld, Peter T. Stevick, Brent S. Stewart, Janice Straley, Kevin R. Sullivan, Salvatore Testaverde, Mason Weinrich, Dean Wilkenson, Hans Wapstra, and Sharon Young. We also are grateful to Robert J. Hof- man, Robert H. Mattlin, Suzanne Montgomery, John R. Twiss, Jr., and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and very helpful comments on draft manuscripts.

LITERATURE CITED

ALEXANDER.G. 1980. Blue whale apparently killed by Ship. Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA. 8 July. Part II, p. 8. ALLEN,G.M.1916. The whalebone whales of New England. Boston Society of Natural History. Memoirs 8(2):105–322. ANDRE´ , M., M. TERADA AND Y. W ATANABE. 1997. Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) behavioral response after the playback of artificial sound. Report of the Interna­ tional Whaling Commission 47:499–504. ANONYMOUS. 1904. Sliced a whale. Boston Record. 8 November 1904. Boston, MA ANONYMOUS. 1908. Steamship races with whale. Transcript. 26 August 1908. Montreal, Quebec. ANONYMOUS. 1910. Sea mystery of seven years. Unidentified Philadelphia paper. 19 August 1910. ANONYMOUS. 1950. Sea monster. Life Magazine. 23 January. pp 26–27. ANONYMOUS. 1975. Ship kills whale in collision. San Diego Evening Tribune, San Diego, CA. p. A-12. ANONYMOUS. 1995. Scientists try to determine cause of fin whale’s death. Royal Ga­ zette. Royal Gazette Limited, Hamilton, Bermuda. August 1995. p. 2. BEST,P.B.,V. M. P EDDENMORS AND N. RICE.Inpress. Mortalities of right whales and related anthropogenic factors in South African waters, 1963–1998. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. BURGESS,R.K. 1940. Whale in harbor causes wailing among officials. Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, MD. 10 March. p. 2. CALDWELL,D.K.,M. C. CALDWELL AND D. W. RICE. 1966. Behavior of the sperm whale, Physeter catodon.Pages 677–717 inK. S. Norris, ed. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. CASWELL, H., M. FUJIWARA AND S. BRAULT. 1999. Declining survival probability threat­ ens the North Atlantic right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 96:3308–3313. CHATTERTON,E.K.1926. Whalers and whaling, the story of whaling ships up to the present day. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, PA. THE COMMITTEE OF LLOYDS REGISTER. 1890. Lloyds register of British and foreign ship­ ping. Appendix 1980. London, England. THE COMMITTEE OF LLOYDS REGISTER. 1934. 1933–1934 Lloyds register of shipping, Volume II. London, England. Pp. 1125–1154. THE COMMITTEE OF LLOYDS REGISTER. 1950. Lloyds register of shipping. Register Book Appendix 1950. London England. FORD,J.K.B,G.M.ELLIS AND K. C. BALCOMB. 1994. Killer whales: The natural history and genealogy of Orcinus orcain British Columbia and Washington State. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. FRASER,F.C. 1934. Report on cetacea stranded on the British coasts from 1927 to 1932. The British Museum (Natural History). William Clowes & Sons, Ltd. Lon­ don. 41 pp. � maps. FRASER,F.C. 1946. Report on cetacea stranded on the British coasts from 1933 to LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 61

1937. The British Museum (Natural History). Jarrold and Sons, Ltd., Norwich, England. 56 pp. � maps. FRASER,F.C. 1953. Report on cetacea stranded on the British coasts from 1938 to 1947. The British Museum (Natural History). Jarrold and Sons, Ltd., Norwich, England. 48 pp. � maps. FRASER,F.C. 1974. Report on cetacea stranded on the British coasts from 1948 to 1966. The British Museum (Natural History). Publication No. 718. Staples Print­ ers Ltd., Kettering, Northants, England. 65 pp. � maps. GEORGE,J.C., L. M. PHILO,K.HAZARD,D.WITHROW,G.M.CARROLL AND R. SUYDAM. 1994. Frequency of killer whale (Orcinus orca) attacks and ship collisions based on scarring on bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus)ofthe Bering-Chukchi-Beau- fort Seas stock. Arctic 47:247–255. GERACI,J.R., AND D. J. ST.AUBIN. 1979. Biology of marine mammals: insights though strandings. Final report to the Marine Mammal Commission. PB83–262949. Na­ tional Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 343 pp. GILMORE,R.M.1959. Whales without flukes. Pacific Naturalist 1:3–9. HARMER,S.F. 1927. Report on cetacea stranded on the British coasts from 1913 to 1926. Report No. 10. British Museum (Natural History). William Clowes & Sons, Limited, London. 91 pp. HEYNING,J.E.,AND M. E. DAHLHEIM.Inpress. Strandings, incidental kills, and mor­ tality rates of gray whales. InG. P. Donovan, H. Braham and M. Muto, eds. Gray whales. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 17). HONMA,Y., A. CHIBA AND T. USHIKI. 1997. Histological observations on a muscle mass from a large marine mammal struck by a jetfoil in the Sea of Japan. Fisheries Science 63:587–591. HORWOOD,J.W.1981. Results from the IWC IDCR minke whale marking and sighting cruise 1979/80. Report of the International Whaling Commission 31: 287–315. INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION. 1992. Report of the comprehensive assessment special meeting on North Atlantic fin whales. Report of the International Whal­ ing Commission 42:595–644. INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION. 1997. Report of the Scientific Committee. Re­ port of the International Whaling Commission 47:57–112. KNOWLTON,A.R.,AND S. D. KRAUS.In press. Mortality and serious injury of northern right whales (Eubalaena glacialis)in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. KNOWLTON,A. R., S. D. KRAUS AND R. D. KENNEY. 1994. Reproduction in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1297– 1305. KRAUS,S.D. 1990. Rates and potential causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science 6:278–291. LLOYDS REGISTER OF SHIPPING. 1992. Statistical tables: June 1992. Lloyds Register Printing Services Ltd., Burgess Hill, West Sussex, UK. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION. 1999. Marine Mammal Commission annual report: 1998. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814. 239 pp. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE. 1995. Endangered Species Act section 7 consul­ tation biological opinion on U.S. Coast Guard vessel and aircraft activities along the Atlantic Coast. 15 September 1995. Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MA. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE. 1996. Endangered Species Act section 7 consul­ tation biological opinion on U.S. Coast Guard vessel and aircraft activities along the Atlantic Coast. 22 July 1996. Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MA. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE. 1998. Report of blue whale strike, 3 March– March 11, 1990, Second Beach, Middleton, Rhode Island and Sachusest Point 62 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001

National Wildlife Refuge. Memorandum by Dana Hartley, 30 May 1998. North­ east Region, Gloucester, MA. NORRIS,L. 1980. Blue whale struck by freighter. Cetus 2:2. PATTEN,D.R., W. F. S AMARAS AND D. R. MCINTYRE. 1980. Whales, move over! Whal­ ewatcher 14:13–15. PERRY,S.L,D.P.DEMASTER AND G. K. SILBER. 1999. The great whales: History and status of six species listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Marine Fisheries Review 61:1–74. RICE,D.W., A. A. WOLMAN AND H. W. BRAHAM. 1984. The gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus.Marine Fisheries Review 46:7–14. RICHARDSON,W.J,C.R.GREENE,C.I.MALME AND D. H. THOMPSON. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press. San Diego, CA. SCHMITT,F.P.1976. The Jonah caper. American Boater. October 1976:24–27. SCHMITT,F.P.1979. Vessels vs. whales. Sea Frontiers 25:140–144. SLIJPER,E.J. 1962. Whales. Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY. SLIJPER,E.J.1965. A hundred years of modern whaling. Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 43 pp. SLIJPER,E.J. 1979. Whales. Second Edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. SMITH,E.W.1978. Passenger Ships of the world past and present. George H. Dean Co., Boston, MA. SMITH,T.D.,J. ALLEN,P.J.CLAPHAM,P.S.HAMMOND,S.KATONA,F.LARSEN,J.L IEN, D. MATTILA,P.J.PALSBøLL,J.SIGURJONSSON,P.T.STEVICK AND N. ØIEN. 1999. An ocean-basin-wide mark-recapture study of the North Atlantic humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Marine Mammal Science 15:1–32. STEVICK,P.T.1999. Age-length relationships in humpback whales: A comparison of strandings in the western North Atlantic with commercial catches. Marine Mam­ mal Science 15:725–737. TERHUNE,J.M.,AND W. C. V ERBOOM. 1999. Right whales and ship noise. Marine Mammal Science 15:256–258. TOMILIN,A.G. 1957. Mammals of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries. Vol. IX Ce­ tacea. (V. G. Heptner, Ed). Nauk. S.S.S.R., Moscow (English translation, 1967, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Ltd. Jerusalem). U.S. COAST GUARD. 1991. Incident Report 3040, Commanding Officer, USCGC Chase. 16 July 1991. U.S. Coast Guard, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA. U.S. NAVY. 1995. Whale-vessel contact. Memorandum for Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Species. Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Navy Environmental Protection, Safety & Occu­ pational Health Division. 3 February 1995. Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC. WILEY,D.N.,R. A. ASMUTIS,T.D.PITCHFORD AND D. P. GANNON. 1994. Stranding and mortality of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae,in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United States, 1985–1992. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 93:196–205. Received: 10 August 1999 Accepted: 26 June 2000 LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 63 a a a a Source Cummings Cummings Cummings Cummings 1916 W. W. W. W. Nantucket In­ Description of event long was seen awash and swimming slowly about 90 m astern for a few minutes to remove the carcass. bow below the water line, it was necessary to stop and run bow. bow. It was thought the whale was struck while it was sleep­ ing. merged merged to a shallow depth. The impact was not felt, but it caused severe damage to the sonar dome necessitating dry- docking in Boston. mo, Cuba, to Boston, Massachusetts, a large whale about 15 ahead and 18 m to port. A few seconds before impact it sub- object on the bow was identified as a whale. The ship had back to full to dislodge the whale, which then sank. There was no damage to the ship. ed something on the bow. The engines were stopped and the on deck. Looking back they saw the whale rolling about as if in May 30, 1885 distress. (No reference was made as to whether or not blood was seen.) The vessel sustained no damage. cited in Allen At 1300 in fine weather and calm seas enroute from Guantana- South Pacific whale which was cut almost in half. Impaled across the ship’s Islands engines were reversed to remove the whale’s carcass from the Cape Garda-fui, Canary had been struck on the head and body and become lodged on the bow below the water line. The ship was stopped and the Zealand two feet out of plumb. koura, South Island, New collided with a large whale and incurred damage to the stem bar protecting the rudder. The bar was twisted to port about Montauk, U.S.A. Long Island, New York, m low Sea shudder was felt throughout the ship. The bow lookout report­ Nantucket,MA, USA vessel dipped until water nearly reached her hatches and seemed in such imminent danger of capsizing that those below quirer rushed and Mirror 65(48), 20 kn Northern Yel- After midnight under a full moon and in calm seas a sudden � ; ; ; Anecdotal descriptions of collisions between self-propelled ships and whales. ;93 ;93 Maori ; Size USS. Si- USS ; 169 m 131 m 144 m Alexander M. Lawrence, No.4 Maunganui Amerskerk er; ship; er, er, cily 133 m Tweedy m unknown Appendix 1. jury whale Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 1952 August Unknown Unknown Navy destroy- 14 kn 139 km off 3/22/55 Sperm Killed Steamship; 17 kn 89 km west of After a mysterious jolt, the crew found that a 10-m sperm whale Slijper 1979 May 1885 Unknown Minor in- Pilot boat; 13 kn 32 km east of The vessel’s port bow suddenly collided with a large whale. The Fall 1953 Unknown Killed Aircraft carri- 12/25/54 Unknown Unknown Passenger 18 kn 11 km off Kai- Very early in the morning while steaming northward, the vessel Mid-1930s Unknown Killed Steamer, 15 kn Near Raratonga, While steaming from New Zealand, the ship collided with a large 64 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 a a a a a Source Cummings Cummings Cummings Cummings Cummings W. W. W. W. W. Description of event Continued. whale thought to be surfacing in front of the vessel was whale appeared to swim away The slowly. ship sustained no damage. the bow. the bow. The ship had to be stopped and backed down to remove the whale which then sank unidentified. the speed vessel’s was too slow for the number of propeller revolutions being registered. A crewman was sent to look for obstructions on the bow and reported a whale was stuck to vicinity. In vicinity. midafternoon, with good visibility and low swell, a back sliced by the propeller and bleeding. The other whales in the school circled about the injured animal. struck. A small amount of blood was seen in the water; the pair. pair. The female dove while the calf played at the surface alongside the boat as it passed. When the female was seen of about 50 sperm whales, the vessel approached a cow-calf thrashing whale and feces-filled water was seen in the boat’s wake. The starboard propeller was bent necessitating drydock repair. there was a strong thump as the whale was struck. The surfacing, the vessel’s engine was immediately disengaged, but the water. to the collision in a light sea and good After visibility. the col- lision, the whale was seen thrashing in the wake with blood in Numerous whales, possibly including cow-calf pairs, were in the After dark enroute to San Juan, Puerto Rico, it was determined While on a whale-marking research cruise amid a harem school W � N, � 31 � Appendix 1. 30 � fax, Canada 123 Pacific co, California, USA; 37 San Francis- Reinga,North Island, New Zealand struck a whale causing the vessel to shudder and the engine speed to slow The noticeably. whale sel. was Before seen evasive thrashing action with could its be taken, the vessel’s propeller 200 km W of � ; Sioux ;41 m ;41 8,000 � USS New- port News 219 m City unknown; 14,000 tons tons unknown; 13,000 tons known; jury ship; name jury ship; name jury name un- whale jury boat; Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 1960 1961 September Unknown Severe in- Cargo vessel; 14 kn Caribbean Sea At about 1500 a whale was sighted lying at the surface just prior 11/29/65 Sperm Minor in- Whale catcher Unknown February Unknown Severe in- Passenger Unknown West of Cape At about 1100 a large school of whales crossed ahead of the ves- 1963 Unknown Severe in- Passenger 18 kn Equatorial July 1967 Unknown Killed Navy cruiser; Unknown South of Hali- LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 65 a a a b 1994 Source et al. Cummings Cummings Cummings W. W. J. Murphy II W. harbor, harbor, the vessel ´ Description of event Continued. filmed the animal, which was nearly cut in half, as it was dis­ lodged. the ship’s bow. A large whale 15–18 m long was observed im- paled on the bow. Before entering Gaspe had to use reverse thrust to dislodge the whale. A passenger ble propeller slashes. The bull and cow cradled the calf between them to prevent it from turning upside down. The ship stayed with the animals for 10–15 min before leaving. The ship sus­ tained no damage. Spain, the crew of the harbor pilot boat noticed a whale lying across the ship’s bulbous bow. Prior to that time the crew was thrashing with blood coming from the wound. unaware they had struck a whale. The whale had no apparent propeller wounds or signs of bleeding. Reverse engine thrust was used to remove the whale from the bow. Based on an un­ explained decrease in ship speed, it was thought the whale had been hit at night about 3–4 h before reaching the pilot station. At about 0700 a crewman reported hearing a flapping noise on Upon arriving at the Boston harbor pilot station from Cadiz, Que- ´, Appendix 1. Gaspe Indian Ocean fied whale. The collision caused no damage to the vessel. bec, Canada Columbia,Canada faced off the stern and the ship circled back to within a few feet of the whales. A calf was seen bleeding profusely from visi­ sachusetts, USA lands, Pana-ma, PacificOcean directly in front of the boat. The boat struck the whale and went right over the animal breaking off the tow ring fitting in the animal’s flesh. After the collision, the animal was seen 97 km east of � kn gia, British seen in the wake. A bull, a cow, and two calf killer whales sur- 25 kn Las Perlas Is- At about 1000 while running at top speed, a small whale surfaced � ; ; ; Comex SS Young ; 152 USS 133 m 232 m Queen 207 m m ship; ship; container kn Boston, Mas- er; Brazil America Whipple unknown; 4 m jury er; name whale? whale jury ferry; Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location and ern 2/73 right 1972 11/72 north- 1973 March Unknown Severe in- Boston whal- 10/9/67 Unknown Killed Passenger Unknown Approaching Between Unknown Killed Bulbous bow 21–23 October Unknown Killed 12/26/73 Navy destroy- Killer Unknown Bay of Bengal, At Severe around in- midnight the vessel struck and killed a large unidenti- Commercial 15–18 Strait of Geor- At 1545 a crunch was heard at the ship’s stern and blood was Ford 66 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 a a c et al. Source Cummings Cummings 1980, Alexan­ der 1980 1975 Norris 1980 Patten W. W. Anonymous Description of event Continued. dead whale with a severed tail stranded near the collision site. given the slow ship speed enroute from Port Angeles. free of the ship’s bow. It was not known when the whale but was it hit, was thought to have been on the bow for at least five days face near the ship. The crew was unaware of the collision until diatee call at Port Angeles, California, a 18-m blue whale drifted noticed in the water after the vessel passed. The ship sustained no damage. log about a sudden decrease in speed from 39 to 35 change km/h in and the a bow wake. The whale’s spine was broken. then. The collision location was inferred from notes in the ships down the mid section. A large pool of bloody water soon formed. It was thought the whale must have come up directly under the boat because passengers on the bow at the time were looking down at the water and saw no whale before the colli­ sion. The boat sustained no damage. while foil-borne returning to San Diego. The vessel came to a dead stop within about 30 m, but no injuries to the crew 18-member were reported. The vessel sustained considerable damage to its rear struts. The crew lost sight of the whale but a the next day Upon arriving in Seattle, Washington, from Taipei with an interme- Upon entering Los Angeles harbor a dead whale floated to the sur- At 0728 about 2.4 km south of Point Loma, the ship hit a whale off Baja At 1530, while on auto pilot, the boat suddenly veered to port Appendix 1. New Zealand twin screw ferry struck and possibly killed a whale. Blood was Mexico Ensenada, Mexico a large whale surfaced at the stern with deep propeller gashes Peninsula, and started shaking. The engines were stopped immediately and Bank Massa-chusetts,USA immediately in front of the vessel. There was no time to take evasive action. After the collision the whale was not resighted but blood was seen in the water around the vessel. California, USA 2km 2km � 21 kn 64 km west of ; tons Bry- Bald- Flags- ; 203 ;18 m ;18 ;72 ;72 butte 174 m Evershine 4,000 tons unknown; m nette taf foil; name un- known; 28 m freighter; jury ferry; name jury ing vessel; whale whale? gray jury yacht; whale whale Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 1984 August Fin whale Severe In- Whale-watch- 16 kn Stellwagen At dusk while returning to port at full n speed, whale a surfaced fi M. Weinrich 4/23/74 Unknown, Severe in- Private motor 10.5 kn Late 1974 Unknown Severe In- Commercial1/22/75 17 kn Gray Cook Strait, Killed During the afternoon in moderate seas and good the visibility, Navy hydro- 51 kn Off Pt. Loma, 10/24/80 Blue Killed Bulbous bow Unknown North Pacific 7/5/80 Blue Killed Tanker; LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 67 ,in ,in ,in d Source et al. et al. T. T ucker Description of event Continued. ship. Three days later two dead right whales stranded nearby, one with propeller gashes and a damaged rostrum, the other with no external wounds changing course or speed. The event was video taped from a nearby whale-watching vessel. took the full brunt of the impact and as the vessel passed over it, the calf was struck by the propeller. After attempts by the cow to support its bleeding calf, the calf crossed the waterway, stranded on a small beach and died. The cow remained in the area several hours. phone operator detected an increase in the ship’s radiated noise astern. An increase in vibration in the aft part of the ship also was noted. Divers sent down to survey the hull re­ ported significant damage (a 1.6-m tear) in the leading edge of a propeller blade. The propeller had to be replaced at a cost of $125,000. flight deck noted a large pool of blood astern and the back and tail of a large whale. Although the watch did not see the whale and there was no noticeable bump, the ship’s hydro­ While underway with a bridge watch posed, crew on the fantail/ Appendix 1. South Africa directly in front of the dredge as it passed a breakwall. The calf Port Eliza-South Africa whales were seen ahead of the vessel crossing the bow. They blood was seen in the water immediately thereafter behind the press Harbor, Harbor, advice to be alert for them, a cow-calf pair suddenly surfaced press bor, bor, SouthernCalifornia, the approaching ship until it USA was about 30 m away when the pod suddenly increased speed and dove to avoid the ship. The press last whale to dive was hit. The ship continued on without beth Harbor, failed to dive, an impact with at least one animal was felt, and California, USA Angeles Har- tanker bearing down on them. The whales seemed unaware of Dahleim, in Unknown Off Southern Barri- ; 126 ; 110 m ; 171 m er ferry; D.E. Patter- son USS Hep- burn dredge; known m size un- jury right whale right whale whale Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 9/7/88 Southern Killed screw Twin 12–13 kn 7 km outside The ferry was accelerating on leaving the port at 1653 when nine Best 10/16/84 Southern Killed Hopper Unknown East London At 0730 after receiving a report of right whales in the area and Best 3/5/88 Gray Unknown name/ Tanker; Unknown Outside Los A small pod of migrating whales was seen directly ahead of a Heyning and 1/24/85 Unknown Severe in- Navy frigate; 68 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 ;S. ;S. e d f Source Young T. T ucker K. Sullivan Description of event left the cow-calf pair to move to the sin- Mary Elizabeth 0900 while foil-borne, the ship struck a whale causing a rap- 1845 in calm seas and clear weather, two large whales, possi- U.S. Coast Continued. � � alternately observing a mother-calf pair and a single animal. The arms broke, ruptured seawater piping caused flooding of the gas turbine, the hull was warped in numerous places, and starboard diesel engine shifted forward off its mounts. Repairs cost $1 million. about 4.6 m long rolled from under the stern bleeding profuse­ ly from large propeller gashes on its side. It rolled a few times, settled nose up for a few minutes, and sank ‘‘obviously dead.’’ The two large whales surfaced, circled back to the ship, lin­ gered a while, and then left. Both propellers were damaged. photo-identified animal surfaced named a ‘‘Rocker,’’ few yards off the starboard bow, apparently lunging to avoid the vessel. The engine was immediately disengaged, but the bow struck and rode up over the whale. It resurfaced off the stern. The vessel’s naturalist observed the whale and reported no injuries and normal swimming behavior. However, observers on a third whale watching boat approaching from about a mile away photographed the animal with a fresh shallow nick be­ tween its nares and dorsal fin. Over the next six years, the an­ imal was resighted annually (except 1996) at Stellwagen Bank. Photos show the wound healed with no apparent effect to the whale. actuators were severely damaged, port and starboard steering gle animal about 90 m While away. doing so, the whale, a At about 1700, the vessel and another whale-watching boat were N, W trying to avoid the ship. A few seconds later the ship vibrated and the engine was disengaged. As the ship slowed, a calf � � Appendix 1. 21.5 06.5 � � Bank, Massa- chusetts, Bay, Bay, USA; 38 facing 46 m ahead crossing the bow. They dove quickly perhaps USA Delaware bly sperm or right whales, were seen by the bridge watch sur- Guard 1991 73 USA id landing threw the crew forward. Port and starboard aft strut 185 km E of At � 40 kn Off Key West, At � ; ; Aquila ; 24 m cutter; 84 m Mary Eliza- beth Chase foil; 14 m back jury ing Vessel; whale Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 4/16/91 Unknown Unknown Navy hydro- 6/21/91 Hump- Minor in- Whale watch- 5–10 kn Stellwagen 7/6/91 Unknown Killed Coast guard 22 kn LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 69 h i i g j et al. Source 1997 H. Wapstra 275 m away occasionally � Description of event 1515 in heavy fog, a whale surfaced off the bow and was National Marine Continued. � slapping the water with her pectoral fin. Three days later calf the was found floating dead offshore and was towed ashore for The necropsy. ship sustained no damage. er, er, a shudder was felt throughout the ship. Immediately after­ ward, blood was seen in the ship’s wake from which it was concluded that a whale had been struck. Numerous whales were seen shortly before the event. The vessel sustained no damage. sudden unexplained decrease in vessel speed, the Captain pre- was found draped over the ship’s bulbous bow. Based on a sumed the whale was hit at 0400, about 4 h before entering port. A necropsy indicated the whale was alive when struck. The event was the first record of a Bryde’s whale from Tas­ manian waters. Upon entering the port of Burnie, a Tasmania, dead 12-m whale N, W were heard during the event. The ship stayed with the calf for two hours; the calf’s mother stayed Bonde � � N, W reportedly resulted in the death of one passenger. 44 04 � � � � Appendix 1. 56 34 02 16 � � � � 81 Augustine, struck before evasive action could be taken. The whale, a calf, Fisheries Ser­ Florida, USA, was badly lacerated by the propellers. bumping Two sounds vice 1995; 30 Lawrence Es- Canada tuary, ter the collision a wound was visible front on of the the animal’s dorsal back fin. in Lawrence Es- Canada tuary, n pass, whale a surfaced fi and struck the bow wound of was the subsequently vessel. oberved A on the animal’s back. 27 14 Callao, Peru face a few hundred yards ahead of the ship. A few minutes lat- Australia 19 km W of In late morning, a biologist on the bridge saw a large whale sur- D. Ainley � 14 kn Bass Strait, � ; City Survey- ;25 m ;25 20 m ;89m ;89m or � Point Fran- cis unknown; 121 m ship; cutter; ferry; name name/size unknown name/size unknown of Burnie container jury sel; jury ing vessel; jury ing vessel; whale right whale Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 1992 whale 4/4/92 Unknown Severe in- Research ves- 14 kn February Sperm Killed High-speed 45 kn Canary Islands; 5/15/92 A description of the event is not available, however the collision Bryde’s Andre´ Killed Bulbous bow 6/20/92 Fin whale Minor in- Whale-watch- Unknown 1/5/93 St. Tadoussac, Northern The vessel collided with the fin whale while whale watching. Af- Killed N. Menard Coast Guard 15 kn 7/29/93 6 km off St. Fin whale Minor in- At Whale-watch- Unknown Bergeronnes, St. While moving toward a humpback whale and letting another boat N. Menard 70 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 1 i k et al. Source Description of event Continued. marine mammal. observed swimming in circles before contact with the animal was lost. There was no damage to the vessel. ceived injuries to its right side, mid-length. No other whales were observed in the area. head-on along the port bow. After striking the whale, it was was caught on the bow of the vessel. three hours later and the port pilot advised the captain a whale water. water. The animal also was observed on its side and moving slowly from a Coast Guard helicopter. Rough weather prevented a determination of the extent of the The injury. vessel’s propel- Smithsonian ler, propeller shaft, and rudder were damaged. base, Institution down the starboard side of the vessel The whale may have re- Appendix 1. pan, Sea of Japan suction pipe at the stern of the ferry and examined microscopi­ Tissue cally. examination strongly indicated it was from a large Niigata, Ja- of bone and muscle tissue was removed from the left waterjet 1997 Southeast 17 km/h, the vessel struck what was believed to be a hump- Alaska, USA back whale. The report indicated the whale was struck almost Toulon har-Toulon a 4-km/h decrease in vessel speed. The cause of shock and tic City, tic New City, yet on plane. About 15 min later the animal was observed tacean Distri­ bor, bor, France strong vibrations was unknown until the ferry entered port lina, USA breached in front of the submarine, struck the bow, and slid Jersey, USA Jersey, as ‘‘wobbling’’ it attempted to dive and blood was seen in the butional Data­ Lawrence Es- Canada tuary, watching. The impact was hard enough to brate. A make the wound hull was vi- subsequently seen on the whale. Summer Sound, The captain of the fishing vessel reported that, while moving at M. Sternfeld 20 kn Mediterranean; At 0200, the crew felt a shock followed by strong vibrations and A. Collet 10 kn 2 km off Atlan- The animal was hit at 1030 as the vessel was accelerating but not MME15658, Ce­ � � 9kn 9kn ; ; 159 Ile de ;31 ;31 27 m m Beaute Suisei Lady Kath � m ferry; known unknown 10 m rine; name/ sel; name vessel; name/size unknown size un- jury jetfoil ferry; jury watching right backwhale jury fishing ves- whale? hum- jury whale? back Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 9/9/93 Fin whale Killed Bulbous bow 10/7/93 Hump- Severe in- Private sport 10/31/94 Unknown Severe in- High-speed Unknown 22 km W of Following a collision with an object in the water, a 193-g sample Honma 2/1/95 Unknown, Unknown Navy subma- Unknown Off North Caro- After leaving port and while on the surface, a small black whale U.S. Navy 1995 6/1/95 Unknown, Minor in- Fishing vessel; 8/14/94 Fin whale Minor in- Whale- Unknown St. Tadoussac, The vessel called to report n colliding with whale a while fi whale N. Menard LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 71 l l i Source Institution 46 m ahead of the vessel at M. Sternfeld � Description of event Continued. 1630. An attempt was made to avoid the whale, but a shud­ sion, but the whale was hit hard. Hull damage was suspected and passengers were asked to don life vests. The port stabilizer was subsequently found to have been lost in the collision. No injured animal was seen after the strike or in searches of the area in the following days. had a broken spine and extensive bruises. carried to Bermuda, a distance of at least 2,037 km. The whale Smithsonian � bow. bow. Before a warning could be issued, a thud was heard and a shudder felt. The ship stopped to search the area but no injured animal was found. The ship sustained no damage. bow. bow. injured whale. No ship damage was reported. Appendix 1. Bay, Bay, Prince ing at speed towards a group of humpback whales seen in the William distance. The captain on the bridge and passengers at the bow Sound, Alas-ka, USA suddenly saw a large whale surface immediately ahead of the vessel. The captain immediately throttled down to avoid a colli­ Massachu- known cause felt about 30 miles southeast of Cape Cod, the butional Data- setts, USA captain concluded the whale was struck at that location and base, Cape Cod, covered on the ship’s bow. Based on a major vibration of un- tacean Distri­ of Kenai Peninsula,Alaska, USA ship circled der back was and felt found throughout blood the in ship the indicating water, but a no collision. The dead or Massachu-setts, USA reported a whale directly off the bow. At about the another same seaman time, saw a whale surface 5–6 m off the starboard vice 1996 Cape Cod, bridge wing was instructed to look for whales. He subsequently Fisheries Ser- Lawrence Es- Canada tuary, collided with a minke whale while traveling erator at could speed. not The see op- directly in front of the craft due to its high 185 km E of Whales were observed in the area and the watch on the starboard National Marine � 30 kn Bergeronnes, St. The vessel, a pneumatic rigid-hulled craft capable of 74 km/h, N. Menard � 18 Reli- Jar- ; � ; Royal ;64 m ;64 ; 115 m m 173 m Kenai Fjords name un- known; 11 m ing vessel; ance vis ing vessel; cutter; ship; passenger Majesty jury cutter; whale whale? hump- back Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 9/26/95 Minke Unknown Whale-watch- 8/1/95 Fin whale Killed Bulbous bow Unknown 48 km SE of Upon arriving in St. George, Bermuda, a 17-m fin whale was dis- MME12124, Ce­ 10/9/95 Unknown, Unknown Coast Guard 15 kn 5/30/97 Unknown Unknown Whale-watch- 22 kn Resurrection Early in the afternoon in clear, calm weather, the vessel was mov- M. Sternfeld 5/16/96 Unknown Severe in- Coast Guard 15 kn Southeast Coast An unidentified large whale surfaced 72 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 l m i n Source D. Hirman M. Sternfeld N. Menard M. Andre´ Description of event Continued. sperm whale cow-calf pair was observed resting on the surface ed a whale 15.3 m below the surface immediately ahead of the ship. Almost a immediately, shudder was felt and the whale was struck a glancing blow on the starboard side. De­ spite a several hour search immediately after the collision, the whale was not resighted and no evidence of an injured whale was found. The vessel sustained no damage. them 914 m to starboard, a speed of 33 km/h was resumed. At 1415 in clear weather, visibility 16 km, the watch report­ 3.7 km ahead. The course was altered and the speed reduced from 33 km/h to 5 km/h to avoid the whales. After passing seen along the ship’s track. At one point two whales were seen three or four zodiacs were already watching a whale, the ves­ whale. The whale surfaced just in front of the vessel before the operator could stop or avoid the animal. After the colli­ sion, the whale was much less active and seemed to be in­ jured. whale’s whale’s tail. At the time, several whales were following the ported that the whale seemed unaffected by the collision and resumed feeding on black cod after being hit. The vessel sus­ tained no damage. vessel feeding on black cod caught on lines. The captain re- sel, a pneumatic rigid-hulled vessel, struck a humpback that the animals went through the propellers. heard and the bodies of both animals were observed behind the vessel amidst blood. Subsequent necropsies determined as the ship approached the animals. The captain saw no move- ment by the animals to avoid the vessel. A loud sound was Between 1143 and 1225 up to seven humpback whales were While longline fishing for black cod, the vessel’s bow struck the At 1400, while approaching a site where two other boats and N, W � � 06 09 N, W � � � � Appendix 1. 09 12 11 32 � � � � 69 Massachu- setts, USA; 42 Cape Cod, 28 15 Estuary, Can- Estuary, William ka, USA Sound, Alas- ada Southern Prince 6kn 6kn � ; ; size Campbell Aleutian Isle 82 m cutter; ferry; name unknown unknown; 100 m unknown name/size jury pair) (cow- calf back back jury ing vessel; whale ent in- whale whale whale Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 7/20/97 Hump- Unknown Coast Guard 18 kn 40 miles east of 9/27/97 Hump- Minor in- Whale-watch- Unknown St. Lawrence 10/12/97 Sperm No appar- Fishing vessel; 1997 Sperm Killed Commercial 25 kn Canary Islands; A LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 73 c c j Source M. Weinrich Description of event 1300 in good weather, the vessel was leaving two humpback M. Weinrich Continued. � bow by a port pilot on 3 March as the ship approached gansett Narra-Bay on route from northern Europe. Before then the Fisheries Ser­ was needed. The precise time and location vice of 1998 the event are un­ known. Date of death and the animal’s age were estimated by the necropsy team. crew was unaware a whale had been struck and caught on the bow. To remove the whale from the bow, reverse engine thrust immediately behind the vessel with a deep bleeding gash be- lieved to be mortal. At least one propeller was damaged. together. together. Other charter boats in the area observed no apparent change in whales behavior or any injuries. Vessel sustained a cracked hull. sonian Institution and dove The quickly. vessel lurched and the whale came up minke whale surfaced about 14 m in front of the bow vessel’s collision. resurface after being hit, but a humpback whale with a deep bleeding wound about one foot wide across the back was seen in the same area about one hour later. it went between the two hulls and was struck by the port about hull two-thirds of the way down the hull. The whale did not While returning from an afternoon whale watching trip, a 6-m Appendix 1. chusetts Bay, chusetts Bay, USA two whales, a third whale surfaced immediately in front of the vessel. The captain turned to starboard to avoid the whale, but Bank, Massa- whales under observation. About 450–900 m away from the Alaska, USA in the area came and circled the struck whale and all swam off base, Smith- chusetts Bay, chusetts Bay, USA Bank, Massa- Nice Harbor, France unidentified whale. A on T-foil the vessel was broken and the ferry arrived in Nice harbor two hours late as a result of the kn Southeast behind the blowhole, tipped the boat, and dove. Other whales bution Data- 30 kn Mediterranean; At about 2230 offshore Ajaccio (west of Corsica) the vessel hit an A. Collet 15–18 North Pass, The vessel reportedly ran up on the dorsal surface of the animal Cetacean Distri­ � ; ; Bot- ;24 ;24 Asco ; 36 m Size un- known ferry; Millennium Whale Watcher 148 m m any Tri- umph unknown; 7 m watching vessel; name tanker; (high-speed catamaran); ing vessel; Charter whale- backwhale ent in- juries Whale whale whale Species Fate of Vessel type, Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 1998 back jury ing vessel 8/5/98 Unknown Unknown High-speed 3/3/98 Blue Killed Bulbous bow Unknown North Atlantic A juvenile blue whale was found draped across the ship’s bulbous National Marine August Hump- Severe in- Whale-watch- 18 kn Stellwagen9/12/98 At Minke Killed 9/24/98 Whale-watch- 25 kn Hump- No appar- Stellwagen 74 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2001 p q o Source J. Wikander K. De Meyer J. Straley Description of event 0900 while traveling the mid-channel route through the pas­ Continued. � seas, two whales were seen surfacing about 3 km and again about 1.6 km ahead of the ship. Officers on the flying bridge then saw two whales surface about 14 m off the port bow, al­ ter course, and swim directly in front of the ship. One whale, with its mouth wide open, came up directly before the bow and was hit. There was a loud thud and a shudder. Both whales resurfaced about 183 m off the stern, one with blood behind it. Both whales were seen breathing at the surface for 5–10 min as the ship proceeded on course. The ship sustained no damage. the ship’s bulbous bow. Until then, the crew was unaware a whale had been hit. From an unexplained decrease in speed to 35 km/h noted in the vessel log, it was determined that the whale was struck in darkness at 0430 about 100 km southwest of Bonaire. The crew did not feel the impact and there was damage no to the ship. sage, there was a slight vibration. It was felt by the chief engi­ neer, but not the crew on the bridge. Shortly there after, a pas­ senger on the bow reported a dead whale, estimated at 11–12 m long, draped over the ships bulbous bow at the water line. remained It there until the ship slowed and the whale slipped off and sank down. The vessel sustained no damage. At about 1930 in good visibility with a 37-km/h wind and 4-m Upon arriving at Bonaire, the harbor master noticed a whale on At Appendix 1. tic Peninsula, Southern Ocean Bonaire, Ca­ ribbean Sea sage, South­ east Alaska, USA Off the Antarc­ Southwest of Stephens Pas­ 14.3 kn 22 kn 19 kn ; ; ; 730 Wes Nieuw Aka 118 m passenger ship; passenger ship; terdam Amsterdam demik Sergey Vavilov 214 m ship; m Bulbous bow Bulbous bow Passenger jury Killed Killed Severe in­ Hump­ back whale Hump­ back whale whale Species Fate of Vessel type, Bryde’s Date struck whale name/size Speed Location 7/28/99 1/11/00 2/1/00 LAISTET AL.:SHIP COLLISIONS 75 Source Description of event Continued. Appendix 1. c/o Suarex Calvan 24, Santa Maria de Guia, Gran Canaria, Canary Islands 35450, Spain, 8 July and 18 August 1999. ´, Species Fate of Vessel type, Personal communication, LTJG Diane Hirman, unpublished Incident Report, August 18, 1997 Fisheries Law Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, Personal communication, Captain Joseph. S. II, Murphy, Massachusetts Maritime 101 Academy, Academy Drive, Buzzards Massachusetts Bay, 02532 U.S.A., 6 July Personal communication, T. J. unpublished Tucker, data, Head, Information Management Systems Department, Naval Safety Center, Department of the 275 Navy, Personal communication, David G. H. Harvey Ainley, T. & Associates Ecological Consultants, 906 Box Elizabeth 1180, Street, Alviso, P.O. California 95002 U.S.A., Personal communication, Hans Wapstra, Australian Parks and Wildlife Service, Australia, Tasmania, 6 August 1998. Personal communication, Anne S. Collet, Center for Marine Mammal Research, Museum of La Oceanography, Rochelle 17000, France, 30 April 1999. Personal communication, Michel Andre Personal communication, Kalli De Meyer, Manager, Bonaire Marine Park, Netherlands Antilles, 20 January 2000. Personal communication, Jonas Expedition Wikander, Leader, Quark Expeditions, 980 Post Rd, Darien, CT 06820 U.S.A., 14 February 2000. Personal communication, Janice M. University Straley, of Alaska, Southeast, 1332 Seward Avenue, Sitka, Alaska 99835 U.S.A., 29 July 2000. William William C. Cummings, unpublished data held by the Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Rm. 905, Bethesda, Maryland, 20814, U.S.A., 28 Personal communication, Mason T. Weinrich, Cetacean Research Unit, Box P.O. 159, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930 U.S.A., 1 August 1998. Personal communication, Kevin R. Sullivan, unpublished data, Office of Enforcement, National Marine Fisheries Service, 53 North 6th Street, Room 214, New Date struck whale name/size Speed Location Personal communication, Sharon Young, Humane Society of the U.S., 22 Washburn Street, Bourne, Massachusetts 02523 U.S.A., 16 July 1999. Personal communication, Nadia Menard, unpublished data, Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, Quebec, Canada, 19 Personal November 1998. communication, Robert K Bonde, Necropsy Examination Report RKB-1424, Sirenia Project, U.S. Geological Survey, 412 NE 16th Street, Gainseville, Personal communication, Mary Sternfeld, unpublished Investigation Report Nos. 95010, 96006, 97025, and 97056, Office of Enforcement, Fisheries National Marine a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q S.W., Washington, DC S.W., 20593 U.S.A., 30 March 1999. 1999. A Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23511-4399 U.S.A., 24 November 1999. Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 U.S.A., 15 June 1999. Florida 32601 U.S.A. Service, Juneau Alaska 00802 U.S.A., 30 July 1998. 16 July 1998. April 1999.